The landlord has the risks that the renter doesn't (that a homeowner does); which is risk offloaded from the renter to the landlord. The landlord then has the risks of the tenant being a bad player, which can be extremely financially risky (worse than being fired from your job).
> from my POV, seems like a low risk investment to be a landlord
Your point of view is extremely far from the truth. Especially for landlords that have one or a few places they rent out, it can be extremely risky. Everything from tenants just deciding not to pay (and taking a year+ to evict) to a Pacific Heights situation, where the place is destroyed with no real recourse. Or, on the lower end, tenants just leaving the place in bad shape, with bugs/mice/whatever; that itself can cost tends of thousands of dollars to recover from.
this puts my life in a very tenuous place (especially bc i don't have full-time employment, took an actual risk to make a living on my own). i don't think the landlord has that risk.
my shelter not being destroyed is extremely more important to me and my life than my landlord who has insurance for such things, especially in a place with a housing vacancy less than 1% (aka very very hard to find housing). if i leave, they will have no problem finding a tenant to take my place. any repairs and maintenance are essentially paid for by my rent. they raised property taxes? no problem, just raise rent...
from my POV, seems like a low risk investment to be a landlord.